but i think a wiser alternative at this point for to us continue to have discussions on ones to enact and which >> all right. mr. levin. start by emphasizing a point where i hope we'll eventually have consensus, which is that our focus and priority should be on the three items that were mentioned, extending the payroll tax cut to 160 americans, extend unemployment insurance for folks who are out of work through no fault of their own and, three -- it seems to me the next round of issues, if there are to be other issues, should be those where there's consensus, where we're not slofing down the priority work on focure so we just had a conversation on boiler mack rules.

i don't want to get into the substance of it. clearly there was a difference of opinion. concerned that would slow the process down if we failed to meet consensus. with respect to -- i agree with senator crapo. you laid out some of the statistics from the treasury department. it makes sense. there may be some extenders where there can be consensus but i would just put forward this one caveat, which is that we've been focused here on the policy issues and there's the very important question about whether, to what extent we offset some of these things and where we do offset them, how we do it. and so while there's, you know, i think it's easy for all of us

to agree that bonusin sentive is a good thing, it may hurt the economy in another place or may have negative effects in other areas. and so, you know, again since we're just focused on half the equation if this is something we should do, bonus depreciation, i say yes, let's go for it. but i would just qualify with that that again, just circling back with what i said, our focus needs to be on payroll tax cuts and the extent on how to deal with these other issues, slow down those priorities. then i think we may have a different answer to our questions. >> all right. mr. read. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your comments. what i would like to say on the issue of 100% bonus depreciation, as a new member of congress coming at this from a

small business prospective, this makes good, strong, policy sense. as i sat in my office and i would put my capital budgets together as you're making decisions about making big investment in your business, that's makes a difference. with that investment we're talking about new jobs, bringing in new people, the people that have to build those capital acquisitions that are going to go into the operation and it also strengthens the operation long term. because these are not assets that are going to be used up in a short term. these are going to strengthen the business. it would strengthen my business when we would improve them. that means i can compete on a stronger base, on a longer term basis. so to me this is a great sense. i'm glad to see bipartisan support on this, i'm glad to see maybe this can be an example of us becoming stronger through this conference committee, having some successes like this

and i look forward to its inclusion in the ultimate product that we get to and i do echo your sentiments, mr. van holland, that the focus needs to be on the three. but at the same time we're achieving those three items, i think this is another success story that can make the start of an agreement bipartisan, wou agreement. i would urge we accept the proposal. >> i would -- >> another round? >> all right. senator baucus. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate that. and there is a great deal of consensus and i certainly agree with my colleague from maryland, congressman van holland. our focus needs to be on dealing with the payroll tax and

medicare issues and unemployment insurance and i certainly support the bonus depreciation. i think that's an important tool we need to continue. i'm somewhat confused by the house rules. i served in the house for a long time but i'm con toous. i thought your house rules allowed to you extend the tax breaks for the highest income people without any offsets but maybe i was wrong about that. and now you're saying that we have long standing tax policies that you -- i know that's for a different day but i would think that there should be a different standard used when we're talking about extending current policies that have been long standing but i think that's an issue that has to be coupled with this discussion and i know we're trying to get the policy today but i agree that how we offset this is very much affecting our decisions on some of these policy determinations. i want to speak in support of

senator balk us's point that there are tax extender policies that we need to take up now. we need the predictability in the code. the lack of predictability costs us our economy. so if you're a business owner and there was one that i was with yesterday when we brought in some of our small business leaders, i had ceo marlin steel, it's a small company that makes steel product, 100% american, including the machinery they use is made in america. they produce a high-quality product sold in america and sold around the world and producing a positive billioned payment for america. is th is what we want rngs to expand manufacturer. the first thing the ceo said to me is it would be important to have predictability on the r & d credit.

they're a high squault. so the failure of expending this is -- i'm all for we should be taking these up in tax reform but realistically we're not going to get that done this month and we have a chance to get some predictability in the code and we should look at the expiring tax provisions and see what we can do. i would add to the list work opportunity tax credits. i worked with senator levin when i was in the house and it's important for people having a very difficult time finding jobs. but i want to take this time to talk about the energy extenders, the green energy extenders because here is an issue that i would hope we would be able to include in our package. and i mention that because we are still trying to catch up to have a level playing field on all sources of energy. we're not. the gas and oil industry has incredible incentives that are permanent and we're trying to

make the secure and the opportunity to invest in renewable energies is very much compromised by the expiration of the tax incentives that help reduce. this is an issue that i've heard from more members of the senate, both democrats and republican. but a couple of my republican colleagues telling me please bring this up, that it's affecting their manufacturing, that they're starting to pull back. i give you an example in the production tax credit dealing with trash facilities. we have an opportunity in maryland to move forward with such a facility. it cannot be put into service until the first quarter of 2014. therefore, the tax credit has expired. it has expired. and we need to get redistrictability if we want

investors to go into that field. wind expires in 2012. i can tell you you can't move forward with a wind project today because you can't put in the service until 2013. so i would urge us to give that previous districtability through the industry. the wind industry right now is already announcing layoffs baufts expiration of the win tax credit. $60 billion was invested in the project since 2005. the amount of turbine production in the united states was 25% of the wind turbines. we're talking about manufacturing jobs as well the energy sauerss. and last li let me mention the transit extension, which affects all of our communities. until january of this year a person who used transit to commute rather than bring in their cars and parking were able to deduct up to $230 a month.

it goes down now to 125 because we haven't extended the transit credit. some people say we'll fix this retroactively. we don't have do it now. if you live next to crispy and holland in community to the capital it, costs but $200 a month. you can only deduct now $125. you used to be able to did dee duct the whole amount. people are making decisions now to drive their cars into dc. and that's going to have a factor. they get the sparking free. we need to take up those types of issues now for the sake of our environment, for the same of our economy and the sick of the energy issues. so i would just urge us to understand the penalty we may when we have lapse of these provisions. we pay a cost for it and i would hope that we'd have the

opportunity to take up the issues in a responsible way, not losing focus of the three principal objectives that we have to get done. >> all right opinion i think it's a senate republican's turn at this opportunity. and then we'll continue to move around. >> okay. we can do that. >> mr. chairman, i just have a question. do any of you here want to tackle the tax extenders before we've completed our work within the scope of congress? >> i'd like to summarize the discussion in relating to our focus. i think we have to keep our eye on the ball and the three major issues that need to be resolved and resolved wisely and policy

will very much be related to pay for it and trying to separate them out i think will turn out to be artificial. and that's why we need to keep our eye on the ball on the three major issues before us. one of them -- senator barrasso while you're here, i want to say something to you as to unemployment and the conditionn. you were talking as a member and a physician of impact of long-term unemployment on families, you said it passionately from your own experience, what it has to do with health, what it has to do

with the spirit within a family and all that's related to it. it just struck me that we should very much as we consider this issue remember those words. we have an historically high number -- high percentage of long-term unemployed in this country. and as we look at the 5 million to 6 million people almost 50% long term unemployed. we need to remember they are not numbers, they're families. and to talk about eliminating weeks starting right away from long-term unemployed i think is a serious blow not only to the national economy but to millions of individuals and their

families. and so we have with that an absolute need to keep our eye on the ball as we do on the payroll tax an s and let me just say as to extenders, you and i have worked on extenders it seems like forever. and i don't think the main issue should be scope. our conference committees have usually found ways to handle critical issues before them, but i do think our first order of business is to address effectively the three issues before us. and then we can discuss other issues not tying ourselves up into -- how we pay for things, what our priorities are and how we fit things together.

and as javier said, we have to remind ourselves as to the urgency here the time limit because there's no one around this table who wants us to fail, no one. thank you. >> i appreciate those comments. before i go to mr. reid, this time frame is really about bonus depreciation. and so i realize there a lot of things that we want to talk about and we have to eat our vegetables before we have dessert and we know what those issues are. i do want to say that i have said from the beginning this is a strict scope of conference because we have so little time to resolve these issues. if it's not in the house bill and it's not in the senate bill, then it's not before this conference. mr. reid. >> thank you, chairman. i just wanted to respond to the comment about what has changed in regards to paying for tax

policy, paying for things that we do in this conference. and what i would like to say is that as a member of the freshman class and i think as a member of all of us here, we are now operating in a different time. there is a fiscal crisis looming on the horizon. i don't think anyone in this room disagrees with the threat of the national debt to our nation and what is coming down the pipeline. so i'm proud to be part of a class, to be part of a new group of members of congress and as members who used to be there now are talking the language that we talk and that we got to pay for our decisions in washington, it is refreshing to have to answer the question as to why did the policy shift from yesterday to today. and that is because i think there's a new mentality in the house in particular that we have to pay for our decisions out of washington. and i think that's what the american people, hard working

taxpayers back at home expect us to do. and that is a significant change in the culture of d.c. that i'm hearing from so many people and i think if we continue down that vein of thought processes that we will be able to accomplish great things for america and prevent that fiscal crisis that's coming down the horizon. >> again, on bonus depreciation, i think i've heard a fair amount of consensus on that particular issue. i'm prepared to move forward on any other items that senator baucus may wish to discuss if that's the -- i guess senator casey. sorry. >> i have less than a minute so it will be quick and it's on 100% expensing. the key point here answered know there's a lot of agreement on this but i just wanted to say a real person in the real world on december 22nd bloomberg reporter katherine dodge wrote the

following -- she talked about campbell fittings, a maker of industrial host couple lings using this particular tax break to buy equipment that allowed the family-owned business about 50 miles northwest of philadelphia to offer more innovative products at a lower cost to better compete with overseas rivals. here what's joe mcguinn said, the executive vice president, quote, it's putting people to work right now, end of quote. that's all i need to say about the great idea. >> mr. chairman. >> i think senator baucus is a senate republican -- >> no. >> i wanted to make a comment on a different subject if i could. as i've been look around the table -- >> no, we're in 100%. >> i've noted the size of the water bottles on the house side and the senate side -- >> i had the same observation.

>> i want the record to reflect the senate's going big. >> and some of you haven't taken a sip. >> we'll go to mr. levin. if there's no one else, i think we're concluded in this round of discussion on bonus depreciation. i think there might be some other items you might want to discuss. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to submit a senate offering and pass it out. this is with respect to ui. there's been a lot of discussions about work surge requirements, reemployment, eligibility assessment, work sharing, self-employment assistance and it's my suggestion that the house take this offer under consideration and see if perhaps if it's the house position to either agree

next session or work out some way where we could at least get these provisions passed. issues be -- are not yet being considered. that is number of weeks and not paying for it, et cetera. but this is just a good faith effort to get the ball rolling here. so we're actually doing something on one of the three major issues. >> senator reid? >> excuse me. i want to kmind you for setting a tone on a vigorous debate but directing us to accomplish principled conclusions, and again, thank you for that. and the offer that the chairman back as has presented represents

proposals made by the house that are very constructive, and i think will improve the program of ui. some proposals we made in the senate, which i think will lead to it, it does represent a balance of constructive improvements to the ui program, it reserves some of the issues as the chairman alluded to in terms of the scope, the extent. what is paid for or not paid for or not at all in terms of emergency spending. i think this is a very good way to begin what have you indicated is your goal of coming to principled resolution of critical issues. this is the most -- in many respects, one of the top three issues, i just wanted to ask your -- i know you will, your thoughtful consideration. >> i might add, chairman, this is a bipartisan full senate offer. >> well, i thank you very much for the offer, thank you for the

proposal and the spirit in which it was made, i think this is something that begins to bridge the gap. as you mentioned this isn't some of the bigger issues, this is on some of the technical terms, i think if we can commit our staffs to do some additional work, i believe we can come to some conclusion on some of these particular technical items, and i realize the media sort of described them as second tier. i know that we still have outstanding some of these bigger issues as you mentioned, unemployment benefits. -- do you need to get a ged as you're receiving unemployment benefits, at least enrole in that process? and the drug screening as well as benefits. we did spend time on those issues yesterday. i think if it's possible, what i would like to ask the senate, we have the staff work on these

issues. if we could work on a proposal from the senate on the bigger issues that were contained in the house bill, we know where people are on these issues, sometime tomorrow we could begin to review not only these technical items but these bigger issues that were there, i would say these would move us significantly forward. we know the house bill costs about $26 billion going-forward. and i know that just glancing at some of these items in here, there would be additional spending included in those. and as we look at the number of week weeks, if we looked at the president's proposal of 79 weeks, that's roughly another 10 billion additional dollars, i know there are those who would like to go more than that, i heard the comments yesterday. but if we could know a senate position beginning on these tier one issues, i think that would be a necessary step to help us

move forward. but i would like to direct the staffs to this proposal that's been made. i think it is a step forward, i think it is a positive step forward, and i think there are some common areas within that, having glanszed at it, i haven't fully analyzed all of it. i don't want to fully commit, but i do see some potential there. thank you. >> yeah. i don't know if i heard you correctly. your thought was what? >> that we direct the staffs. >> with respect to an offer on any remaining issues? >> yes, that we direct the staffs to work on what you have presented to us, and some of these issues are somewhat technical in nature, and i think we can begin to have them prepare that so we could have a dialogue on that proposal, and then move forward on some of these -- for the lack of a

better word, big issues or tier one issues, and have a senate proposal. the house has a statement on those issues, and if we could hear, we had good discussion on these issues, but at least begin a proposal on those tier one issues that we could significantly move this conference forward. >> my senate colleagues -- >> not today. >> no, no, but not -- i understand that, i'm talking about the process. >> yes. and i think it's not a bad idea. unless you hear to the contrary you can expect that you will receive -- at the appropriate time, i can't say when that's going to happen, we're going to have to confer. >> i understand. >> and get that -- you will get that offer? >> all right. >> could i say a word? >> yes. >> first of all, on the proposals here, the provisions, i hope the staffs will work

together on them, i've asked our staff to begin to look at some of these. for example, terms of work search, what the states are now doing, i think the fact is that virtually every state is now undertaking assistance for work search. and one of the issues is whether the provisions should relate to the state benefits as well as the federal program. i think the states now have -- are doing this in terms of unemployment insurance. and the same is true of reemployment services, though i think they've been very much handicapped by the lack of funding, and is mentioned here, funding remains open on several of the other proposals. in terms of the larger issues.

let me express my hope that we will set a pattern of the house and senate working together. the only way we're going to succeed here is by having an effort that involves democrats and republicans in the senate and in the house. and i hope that on these big three issues that that will be the pattern. i mentioned the welfare reform issue of some years ago, that is what was done on these issues, on some of the issues that i remember. it was very controversial, wasn't easy, there were differences of opinion. but we sat down in subgroups and talked through these issues. democrats, republicans, house and senate together.

and i hope that as we proceed here, that there will be the fullest back and forth between the house and senate democrats and republicans. i hope everybody, whether they're democrats or republicans will proceed with that spirit. that's the only way we're going to resolve these issues and do this this month. >> thank you. again, i want to thank the snatd for this proposal and taking the step. and again, i think we can again to work on these issues as we look for department in the others, senator reed i know you wanted to comment as well. >> yes, very quickly, i think we have a basis with these issues where in good faith we can sort of come to an agreement. and that might be the prelude to other larger issues which are -- there's less congress census, i

think in terms of the three larger issues, they're so interrelated in terms of how much we will have to spend, how long programs are are in effect. it might be very difficult to sort of put one before the other in terms of final resolution, since they are so closely related. my suggestion, i think it follows yours, let's see if we can make real progress on this first set of issues, and then we'll have to deal with some of the ui issues what are we going to do on payroll tax, the doctor's fix, et cetera, andty think -- >> well, the only thing i would say,we really have to work on them concurrently. >> i agree. >> time is limited. >> that's my point. >> one is certainly at a staff level, the other is going to be member level as senator baucus said, and hopefully those can be going on at the same